Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.328 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) For purposes of this section:

(a) "Lis pendens" means a lis pendens filed under RCW 4.28.320 or 4.28.325 or other instrument having the effect of clouding the title to real property, however named, including consensual commercial lien, common law lien, commercial contractual lien, or demand for performance of public office lien, but does not include a lis pendens filed in connection with an action under Title 6, 60, other than chapter 60.70 RCW, or 61 RCW;

(b) "Claimant" means a person who files a lis pendens, but does not include the United States, any agency thereof, or the state of Washington, any agency, political subdivision, or municipal corporation thereof; and

(c) "Aggrieved party" means (i) a person against whom the claimant asserted the cause of action in which the lis pendens was filed, but does not include parties fictitiously named in the pleading; or (ii) a person having an interest or a right to acquire an interest in the real property against which the lis pendens was filed, provided that the claimant had actual or constructive knowledge of such interest or right when the lis pendens was filed.

(2) A claimant in an action not affecting the title to real property against which the lis pendens was filed is liable to an aggrieved party who prevails on a motion to cancel the lis pendens, for actual damages caused by filing the lis pendens, and for reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in canceling the lis pendens.

(3) Unless the claimant establishes a substantial justification for filing the lis pendens, a claimant is liable to an aggrieved party who prevails in defense of the action in which the lis pendens was filed for actual damages caused by filing the lis pendens, and in the court's discretion, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending the action.

[ 1994 c 155 s 1.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 45 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Richau v. Rayner, 988 P.2d 1052 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Richau v. Rayner, 988 P.2d 1052 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 15× “PAGE The Lis Pendens Did the superior court err when it refused to award the Rayners damages and attorney fees against the Pages for wrongfully filing a notice of lis pendens on the property the Rayners retained for the future golf course? RCW 4.28.328 is Washington’s lis…”

South Kitsap Fam. Worship Ctr. v. Weir, 135 Wash. App. 900 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “We also affirm its damages award and the attorney fees award under RCW 4.28.328(3), reverse the attorney *904 fees award under the REPSA, and award attorney fees on appeal.”

Lane v. Skamania Cnty., 265 P.3d 156 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “im alleging that (1) in June 2006, they had listed their home for sale with a real estate agent; (2) under Washington law, an action seeking to enforce a covenant is not an action affecting title to real property; (3) they were entitled to damages arising from the Lanes'…”

Udall v. T.D. Escrow Servs., Inc., 130 P.3d 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “328(3) provides: Unless the claimant establishes a substantial justification for filing the lis pendens, a claimant is liable to an aggrieved party who prevails in defense of the action in which the lis pendens was filed for actual damages caused by filing the lis pendens, and…”

Leslie Pendergrast, App-cross Resp v. Robert Matichuk, Resp-cross App, 355 P.3d 1210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “Matichuk requests attorney fees and costs on remand under RCW 4.28.328(3) for defending against the lis pendens.”

South Kitsap Fam. Worship Ctr. v. Weir, 146 P.3d 935 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “We also affirm its damages award and the attorney fees award under RCW 4.28.328(3), reverse the attorney fees award under the REPSA, and award attorney fees on appeal.”

Douglas v. Hill, 199 P.3d 493 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “WE CONCUR: LAU and AGID, JJ. NOTES [1] Ch. 19.40 RCW. [2] The legislature has increased the homestead exemption to $125,000.”

Douglas v. Hill, 148 Wash. App. 760 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “The legislature has increased the homestead exemption to $125,000.”

Lane v. Skamania Cnty., 164 Wash. App. 490 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 5× “The L’Hommedieus argue that they timely moved to supplement their pleadings because, reading CR 13(e) and RCW 4.28.328(3) together, their lis pendens counterclaim did not mature until they became the prevailing party in the Lanes’ action.”

Merriman v. Cokeley, 215 P.3d 241 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “RCW 4.28.328 ¶ 38 The Cokeleys also argue that the trial court erred by denying them attorney fees under RCW 4.”

Merriman v. Cokeley, 152 Wash. App. 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “RCW 4.28.328 ¶38 The Cokeleys also argue that the trial court erred by denying them attorney fees under RCW 4.”

Udall v. TD Escrow Servs., Inc., 130 P.3d 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “328(3) provides: Unless the claimant establishes a substantial justification for filing the lis pendens, a claimant is liable to an aggrieved party who prevails in defense of the action in which the lis pendens was filed for actual damages caused by filing the lis pendens, and…”

Show all 45 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.328(1) — 1 case

Rayner v. Neff, 43 P.3d 35 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.328(1)(a) — 10 cases

Betty Frye & Todd Duty, Apps. v. Jdh Inv. Grp. Llc, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

Linda Tiokasin-orr v. Est. Of Patricia Spruance Orr (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

Christopher Guest & Suzanne Guest v. David Lange & Karen Lange (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Kimberly Han v. Robert J. Cartano, et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

Christopher & Joelle Smith, Resps v. Jeanette K. Phillips, App (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.328(1)(c) — 1 case

Michael Durbin,et Ux, V City Of Univ. Place (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.328(2) — 10 cases

Richau v. Rayner, 988 P.2d 1052 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “PAGE The Lis Pendens Did the superior court err when it refused to award the Rayners damages and attorney fees against the Pages for wrongfully filing a notice of lis pendens on the property the Rayners retained for the future golf course? RCW 4.28.328 is Washington’s lis…”

134th Street Lofts, Llc, App v. Icap Nw Opportunity Fund, Llc, Resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

Fearghal McCarthy v. West Park Partners, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

Rayner v. Neff, 43 P.3d 35 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

Linda Tiokasin-orr v. Est. Of Patricia Spruance Orr (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.328(3) — 29 cases

South Kitsap Fam. Worship Ctr. v. Weir, 135 Wash. App. 900 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “We also affirm its damages award and the attorney fees award under RCW 4.28.328(3), reverse the attorney *904 fees award under the REPSA, and award attorney fees on appeal.”

Lane v. Skamania Cnty., 265 P.3d 156 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “im alleging that (1) in June 2006, they had listed their home for sale with a real estate agent; (2) under Washington law, an action seeking to enforce a covenant is not an action affecting title to real property; (3) they were entitled to damages arising from the Lanes'…”

Leslie Pendergrast, App-cross Resp v. Robert Matichuk, Resp-cross App, 355 P.3d 1210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Matichuk requests attorney fees and costs on remand under RCW 4.28.328(3) for defending against the lis pendens.”

South Kitsap Fam. Worship Ctr. v. Weir, 146 P.3d 935 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “We also affirm its damages award and the attorney fees award under RCW 4.28.328(3), reverse the attorney fees award under the REPSA, and award attorney fees on appeal.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.328(l)(b) — 1 case

Rayner v. Neff, 43 P.3d 35 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.